The God Delusion

14 November 2006

Richard Dawkins is a popular British biologist, famous for his advocacy of evolution and atheism. His previous works, such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, have focused on evolution. But in his new popular work, The God Delusion, Dawkins focuses on a different topic.

The God Delusion actually tries to accomplish three goals: (1) demonstrate that God does not (or, at least, very probably does not) exist, (2) construct an evolutionary theory for the development of religion and morality, and (3) show that religion is and has been harmful and the world would be better off without it. Needless to say, this is an ambitious project, and one which Dawkins fails to satisfy.

Chapters 2-4 address the existence of God. In the second chapter, Dawkins clarifies “The God Hypothesis,” claiming that it is a scientific hypothesis that can and should be tested. In chapter 3, Dawkins attempts to disprove arguments for God’s existence. Unfortunately, the chapter fails to address the most recent, relevant arguments. Although he spends a couple pages trying to refute Aquinas’ Five Ways, he gives no airtime to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which has recently become quite popular and which I think is the single best argument for God’s existence. He also discusses the ontological argument (though he devotes more space to insulting it than refuting it). And although I am not a big proponent of the ontological argument, once again Dawkins fails the test of relevancy, as he does not discuss the much more recent version of the argument proposed by Alvin Plantinga (see here for a brief exposure to different forms of the ontological argument). The chapter is very short, and deals primarily with positively bad arguments such as The Argument from Religiously Admired Scientists. He also devotes a few pages to the argument from scripture, which consists of his tragically insufficient attempt to refute the Bible. Dawkins is no historian or textual critic, but he confidently asserts things without so much as a citation. In sum, Dawkins fails to deal with the most relevant arguments for God’s existence, so even if everything written in the third chapter were true, the evidence for God’s existence would still be very strong.

The fourth chapter deals with another extremely powerful argument for God’s existence- the argument from design. However, even if one grants evolution, we are still left wondering how life began and how the universe (finely tuned for life) began. Dawkins’ response to the question of life’s origin is curious. He claims that there might be billions and billions of planets in the universe, and so it is not that unlikely that at least one of them has life. However, this logic is flawed. Since Dawkins gives no estimate of the probability of life’s abiogenesis by natural means, increasing the number of potential planets to 100 billion does not clearly help very much. If the odds of life originating are 1,000,000 trillion to one, then the fact that there are “only” 100 billion hospitable planets will not help the case for atheism much. Furthermore, Dawkins seems to assume that there are billions upon billions of life-hospitable planets in the universe. This hypothesis is far from proven, and many scientists have argued that, to the contrary, hospitable planets are extraordinarily rare. In essence, Dawkins’ reply to the problem of abiogenesis is to increase the probabilistic resources in an ad hoc fashion, and then merely assume that it is probable.

His response to the bigger question of why our universe is fine tuned for life is even weaker. He speculates that there “might be” multiple universes, mentioning Lee Smolin’s hypothesis of black hole universe creation. Dawkins hopes that a multi-verse theory like Smolin’s may explain the existence of our own fine-tuned universe by means of some sort of natural selection process. But Dawkins provides no evidence for a multi-verse, much less one with selecting properties. He merely hopes that Darwinian “consciousness-raising” will cause us to think that there is one. Dawkins’ response to the teleological argument resorts to wishful thinking, not sound science or philosophy.

How well does Dawkins accomplish his second goal of explaining religion and morality? I found the fifth and sixth chapters, which discuss this issue, quite interesting. I think he does a good job explaining the possible development of religion and morality. However, I find such a goal, if interesting, to be rather useless. There is almost no conceivable human behavior that could not be justified by some sort of Darwinian explanation. The fact that Dawkins can propose some sort of naturalistic account of religion or morality is not at all surprising, and does nothing to undermine religion in general or Christianity in particular.

What about Dawkins’ last goal, to show that religion is harmful? Once again, the fact that religion has been abused in the past, and continues to be used for evil purposes, does nothing to undermine Christianity. But his chapters on biblical morality are full of bluster and completely absent of scholarship.

Richard Dawkins tried to accomplish too much with this book, but in the end accomplished almost nothing. He failed to address relevant arguments for God’s existence, much less refute them, and committed basic philosophical blunders that destroyed his attempt to refute the design argument. If God is actually a delusion, then Richard Dawkins surely hasn’t shown it.

For more on The God Delusion, see these articles:

1. The Evolution of Belief? This article analyzes attempts to demonstrate that religious belief has an evolutionary explanation, especially including ideas found in Dawkins’ book.

2. Dawkins’ Central Argument. This article focuses particularly on Dawkins’ argument for the nonexistence of God based on the evolutionary explanation of life.


  1. Thank you for this blog. I don’t have time to read everything that comes down the pike. This helps alot with someone I know who is reading the book.

    Ben    Jan 6, 05:18 AM    #
  2. There’s no reason for Dawkins to explain how the universe is fine tuned for life. The only reason that someone would have to do that is if the universe’s purpose is life, which, although established within religion, is not in any way arguable outside of those bounds. This is a common assumption held by people who subscribe to the design argument, but is one of it’s greatest flaws.

    Just out of curiosity, how would you, as a knowledgeable Christian, respond to the accusation that the bible condones selling your daughter into slavery?

    — Nate    Jan 12, 09:48 PM    #
  3. Nate, your statement about whether or not life is the purpose of the universe is a good one, but doesn’t hold up in the context of this book review.

    Dawkins sets out to refute the existance of God, taking him firmly into the realm of religion. It is therefore reasonable that religious conclusions on scientific findings be admissible as a rebutal.

    I would further ad that your question is not exactly a fool proof loophole from the idea of a Creator. Logic must still drive you to accept that if enough coincidences unite at a singular point creating a very specific effect, that there might be a design at work. The only really honest argument is where the line should be drawn on what is coincidence or design.

    Even if you discount life as the purpose of the universe, you must still contend with the origin of the universe from nothing. This is an age old argument, and I’m sure we will not resolve it on a blog, but it is also an argument for which religion provides a sufficient answer and naturalism provides only more questions.

    Lastly, your question about “selling your daughter into slavery” is strictly theological and is out of place with the discussion of the book review. Still, I might ask you that if you accept the existance of a God who is all powerful, why would you assume he shares your morality? Would his disagreement with your own moral code preclude his existance?

    — volk    Jan 15, 11:00 AM    #
  4. Volk,

    The conversation about the origin of the universe from nothing is discussed on other pages of the blog, so I didn’t feel the need to address it.

    I was specifically stating that that particular argument is meaningless. First of all, how do we know that life requires the specific conditions of Earth to exist? That is a very large assumption. And if other kinds of life can exist, that logic is out the door, because maybe this universe wasn’t so catered to life as it claims. Maybe life happens all the time.

    Now, you might say that in our experience so far, life can only live on Earth. Well, so far we’ve only really gotten a close look at Mars, and there’s even some evidence of bacteria there.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, just that you should have more information before you claim that the odds of producing life are astronomically low.

    In addition, you can’t argue about chances in hindsight. Lets say I flip a coin 30 times, and it happens to land on heads every time. It wouldn’t matter that the chances were astronomical, it happened. You can’t apply probability to things that happened in the past. Probability is merely a best guess of what will happen. What does happen always trumps it.

    As for the selling your daughter question, I only brought it up because the review mentioned religious morality, but brushed it off, giving no examples of the things that are called full of bluster and absent of scholarship. I was wondering if the author of the article could establish his authority on the subject, in the absence of actual examples or references, to somewhat qualitate his claims.

    — Nate    Jan 16, 09:44 PM    #
  5. Sorry for the double post, but I have one last thing to say about the sell your daughter into slavery subject.

    The author, in other articles, uses objective morality as an argument for God. Now, if we accept that, and accept that the bible is from God, and that God would not wish to mislead people as to what is or is not moral (one could debate this, but the only god I can imagine that would not follow this would be a trickster or liar, things considered by common morality to be wrong), then it follows that the Bible is an accurate representation of objective morality.

    Now, given that the broad view (and my deep-seated feeling) that slavery is evil in any form, what does this say of the objective morality of people? I would argue that it says that it cannot truly be a god-given objective morality. Thus we have reached a contradiction, and must accept one of the premises as false. I would argue the easiest premise to drop would be the one which states that there is an objective morality.

    Sorry about getting off-track, but I needed to get that down.

    — Nate    Jan 16, 09:58 PM    #
  6. “the only god I can imagine” sums up the key to original sin, and that of all sin to follow. If your only god is a god you can imagine and conceive, he must be quite tiny and powerless (probably a little wood figurine you buy in Tahiti). That is the difference between the god of ancient Baal and the God that burnt soaking wet offerings to less than ash in the Bible . When God becomes unconstrained in our mind and consciousness, He is free to become that truly omnipotent God that we cannot fathom. Dawkins’ is limited too by his concept of what god should be.

    SelectedPete    Jan 29, 10:57 AM    #
  7. Nate, if I may make a point about your slavery comment: You question the Bible’s morality due to its numerous references to slavery. You mention the “broad view” that slavery is evil in any form. What exactly do you mean by this broad view? In the last couple hundred years it has been viewed as evil? Please understand I am not positing that slavery is in any way good. There is a theme in the Bible (and please excuse my religious vocab here – I don’t know what else to call it) called the Redemptive Hermeneutic. There is some controversy surrounding exactly what that is among Christians, but basically the idea is that some passages in Scripture are cultural, and some are more broad, absolute. So when the Bible appears to be advocating slavery, it is really advocating the better treatment of slaves compared to how people around the Hebrews would be expected to treat their slaves. This is why pulling certain random passages out of scripture is inappropriate; it must be understood within the context of history and the context of the rest of the Bible. I’m sure if you google it, you could find more information on the topic.

    Woods    Jan 30, 04:38 AM    #
  8. I find this critique sort of ironic… the author criticizes Dawkins for supposedly simply waving away the arguments for God without any substance (it is my personal feeling after reading the book that he made many substantial points) yet that is exactly what this article’s author is doing to Dawkins arguments. “He failed” does not count as a rebuttal. Furthermore, Dawkins does address the Cosmological Argument. He devotes two sections (17 pages) to it.

    Is it simply that the author is fixed on maximum brevity? Perhaps he or she would care to write a “refutation” with a little more substance?

    Ubuntu    Feb 9, 04:27 PM    #
  9. Ubuntu,

    I do not see your point here; demonstrating that Dawkins fails to establish his conclusions does indeed count as a rebuttal. Also, I recognize that Dawkin’s “addressed” the Cosmological Argument- if you read my review carefully you will note that I mention this. I said that he did not address the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is probably the most current, most popular, and most relevant form of the argument. His failure to even mention the argument is significant.

    Furthermore, you criticize me for the brevity of the article. Don’t you realize that this is a simple book review? It would be inappropriate for it to be much longer than it is. I have thought about writing a full refutation of the book, but I decided against it because, honestly, the book is rambling and does not have enough substantive content. However, upon request (such as this) I may write a full refutation.


    I disagree with your claim that the existence of life is a particularly unremarkable thing that cannot ground the Design Argument. However, even Dawkin’s did not, to my knowledge, use this argument- so it can’t really vindicate his poor response to the argument overall. In any case, conscious existence is an extremely improbable occurrence that is unlikely on the hypothesis of naturalism but likely on the hypothesis that there is a Creator of the universe who possesses conscious experience as well.

    Additionally, you seem to be confusing the issue of the design argument, contending that Earth is not necessarily the only hospitable planet. But the Design Argument I was talking about concerns the type of universe that exists. It is unlikely for life to be possible, let alone actual, in any given universe- assuming naturalism. However, an intelligent Creator could purposely design the universe to be hospitable for life. Thus, the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe for life is evidence for the existence of God.

    You also ask me about the slavery issue. You are correct that I brush off Dawkins’ arguments from morality. I probably should provide some examples of the bluster and non-scholarship which I accused him of committing. This aside, on the issue of slavery, I would contend that, in context, the “slavery” principles taught in the Bible were actually for the benefit of the slaves. In actuality, the slavery mentioned in the Bible is analagous to voluntary indentured servitude. The word slavery has very negative connotations because of the abuses of the practice in recent times, as well as historically. However, in the Bible I don’t think the forms of ‘slavery’ mentioned were evil. Check out Glenn Miller’s for more on this issue.



    Kyle Deming    Feb 11, 08:31 AM    #
  10. “But the Design Argument I was talking about concerns the type of universe that exists. It is unlikely for life to be possible, let alone actual, in any given universe- assuming naturalism.”


    Please don’t take this as a personal insult, as I have a great amount of respect for many of your arguments, but this is utter nonsense.

    We have no idea what the chances of life are in our own universe. We don’t even have a good definition of what life is. You’re taking the definition of life to be “carbon based lifeforms which have certain organic properties”, which may or may not be true. This is a very reductionist viewpoint, though, and I think you find that most people associate the term “life” with things like cognition, the ability to reproduce, etc. These properties could be held by all sorts of things, regardless of the medium. In fact, there’s a whole branch of science/computing dedicated to the investigation of things which would be considered alive in a medium far removed from our physics.

    Philosophically, if not scientifically, you are of shaky ground when you say that this universe specifically is especially hospitable to life. Certainly it’s exceptionally hospitable to the type of life that’s evolved here, but the argument you’re making is even more open than the chicken and the egg.

    In response to morals, would you admit that the morals were applicable to the time, and we have to readjust them, and to pick and choose, for them to have any meaning in the present? This is what Dawkins argues. If the morals are so mutable, in what way are they absolute? And if they are not absolute, why should we need them in the first place?

    Thirdly, I believe that Dawkins refutation of the Cosmological Argument applies equally to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Merely substitute the word “begin” for “move” in the argument, and you have a proper refutation. In addition, the part of the argument which states that “causality does not apply to a creator because I define him that way” is absurd. That part of the argument is nearly as simple minded as the Ontological Argument. This part of the argument is mentioned in the text, and applies to both versions of the Cosmological Argument.


    — Nate    Feb 15, 01:27 PM    #
  11. There is a great review by Alvin Plantinga about this book, and he spares little.

    — Chris    Feb 28, 01:25 PM    #
  12. Nate,

    You are unimpressed with my Teleological Argument, but you have several misconceptions. First of all, we DO have an idea of the chances of life in our own universe. This has been determined by physicists and cosmologists who have painstakingly discovered and recorded the precise constants and values of our universe, and who have shown with mathematical models what happens when these parameters are changed (usually, disaster for life). You raise the possibility of non-carbon-based lifeforms. First of all, we have a good reason to be skeptical of ideas of such lifeforms, because carbon has a lot of unique properties (such as its remarkable ability to maintain long, stable chains) that make it particularly suitable for life. Other elements simply lack these properties- even the closest ones, such as silicon, simply don’t seem to be good candidates.

    But this aside, oftentimes the universe is patently unsuitable for any life whatsoever if the values of the constants are slightly altered. For example, in many such hypothetical universes, hydrogen is the only element. But it seems absurd to propose that life could somehow form out of hydrogen alone.

    In conclusion, let me just say that these types of arguments have been considered reasonable by a great deal of contemporary scientists and philosophers, including atheists. So, rather than being utter nonsense, I think the fact that these issues are a hotly debated and legitimate issue for today’s top minds shows that it is something we should give considerable thought.



    Kyle Deming    Mar 10, 10:14 PM    #
  13. ‘The GOD Hypothesis’... an oximoron. Hypothesis are logically meant to be tested. But the KEY that most ‘scholars’ and athiest book pushers forget.. is that the whole Idea of ‘GOD’ is beleif. What good is your faith in something, if you’ve already proven. Thats like betting on fixed game. People the world over, including scholars, authors , athiests alike.. have waisted their careers trying to either disprove or Prove the existance of GOD. But God wants man to beleive through faith.

    My theory is that God put just enough evidence for both sides to chew on, but not enough for either to win. He doesn want people to beleive because they’ve got the proof. He wants people to actually put in the effort to have a little faith.

    So, go on, keep searching ( and this goes to non-believers and believers alike)... keep trying to find your ‘missing link’... you’ll never find it.

    -Will, NJ

    Will Hernandez    Apr 13, 11:31 AM    #
  14. Great post Will!

    In other words, any time Science and Religion appear to be in conflict, then either Science, Religion, or both, have gone beyond the boundaries of how they are to be used.

    Vern    Apr 23, 09:24 AM    #
  15. Exactly. It’s a contradiction in terms. The word, “hypothesis,” implies that God is somehow subject to scientific scrutiny. Science concerns itself only with natural, not supernatural, dynamics.

    So many skeptics nowadays are embracing a scientistic, anti-metaphysical worldview, and it’s very frustrating to me as a Christian believer. Science certainly has it’s place, philosophy has it’s place, and theology has it’s place. Somtimes the three overlap, but one should know their respective limitations.

    — Jared    May 2, 10:33 AM    #
  16. thanks for the great review. I’m halfway through the book, and quite surprised that this is their “fair haired” poster child. He really does not do a good job. I had expected to be annoyed, but in fact have been rather humored.

    mjmesserli    Aug 27, 02:38 PM    #
  17. Good site and review. I personally know of an atheist who became a church-going Christian on reading Dawkins book, so I reckon he should be encouraged to keep up the good work!

    — Gerry    Aug 29, 04:50 AM    #
  18. i’m just a kid compared to probably most of you and i still have a lot to learn, but i’m on God’s side.

    i’m really happy that this site exists.

    Geraldine    Sep 5, 09:21 PM    #
  19. and besides, if you look at the existance of God in a logical sence, you come to this: belief in God (and when you die there IS a God) you gain everything. disbelief (and when you die there IS a God) you loose everything. belief (and when you die there is NO God) you gain and loose nothing. disbelief (and when you die there is NO God) you also gain and loose nothing. So if you believe you really have nothing to loose.

    — kije    Sep 15, 11:19 PM    #
  20. We as humans are intellectually restricted. There are some things in this universe which are too complex for us to fathom. Its like an ant trying to understand string theory.

    — bartok    Sep 15, 11:25 PM    #
  21. The concept of God was made by man, unfortunately The Bible does not reveal truth about God anymore than it reveals the truth about dinosaurs. But science through empirical evidence and mathematics does more to explain God better than anything we have been given by religion. Dawkins does not say there is no God, he says that a God of the Bible is improbable. Our concept of what God is so utterly lacking is the point Dawkins or Einstein or Hawkings try to make.

    — Alan    Oct 26, 09:28 AM    #
  22. The biggest irony is that humans are the only animal intelligent enough to think up something as stupid as religion.

    — Buck    Oct 31, 06:34 PM    #
  23. Why do you say that religion is stupid, please clarify your position?

    Tristian    Jan 11, 11:45 AM    #
  24. Thanks for the review! I saw Ben Stein’s movie “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” and he interviews Dawkins on there. I didn’t know what to expect from poster boy Dawkins but was very amused when Stein asked him how he thought life on earth started and Dawkins metioned the “intriguing” possibilty that maybe an alien intelligence designed it! (Click my name below to see the excerpt on youtube.)

    Dawkins only beef seems to be that he thinks the origin of life should be a what and not a who, or in other words, that God is impersonal, which to me is something I would like to hear him back up with positive arguments.

    Personally, I think God is just as impersonal as personal, if you define impersonal as being self-consistent and objective. I think truth seeking (and impersonal-minded) scientists can, will, and do find the same God if they are honestly looking, but Christianity often fails to package or market itself from this angle. I’m glad that this website exists and especially for its vision statement.

    There are many things I don’t like about religion, many things that seem poisonous, irrational, or interpreted by its adherents irrationally, and I frequently see I have more common ground with athiests than either of us realize. They are unwilling (and rightly so, to an extent) to swallow apparent contradictions, or assumptions, and for many things, I don’t blame them.

    As for the absoluteness of morality mentioned above, I think that this absolute morality is as complex and mysterious as God who is the absolute authority and ultimate existance. (And despite its complexity, we can be in harmony with it since God wants to live in us, and hints to us that it is rooted in the simplicity of love.) And the application of this complex morality to infinite circumstances only multiplies the complexity in a correct understanding. Making assumptions that oversimplify results in straw man arguments seems to be a popular way to miss the point. Getting back to the book, it appears Dawkins himself does this:

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal…”

    From the linked video clip, Dawkins seems to prefer an impersonal God/god as the prime mover, yet lash out at the Christian God for being impersonal in Old Testament times for being so impersonal and keeping to His word, by opposing those who defy Him, and promising death.

    Nature could also be called a petty, unjust control freak. The rules of physics don’t feel sorry for and bend for a child starving in Africa, or stop racism or slavery, etc.

    I have not read the book and don’t know if it is worth my time. To me, the arguments of Dawkins’ and others I have heard seem to be an unfounded bias in favor of an impersonal supreme being or initial mover (either that or a dismissive “your God isn’t it, but I don’t know who/what is”), combined with errant perceptions of how Christianity is full of contradictions.

    I agree along the lines of some above posters… if you want to find truth and God, the obstacles of apparent contradictions can be overcome (asking God to help might be a very good idea), and for those who prefer (admittingly or not, consciously or subconsciouly) their own truth or their own god, these obstacles remain absurdities.

    I don’t understand the atheist hangup requiring that the existance of God, a personal non-mechanistic being, must be proven using impersonal mechanistic means. (There is plenty of evidence supporting the existance of God — I’m talking about proving His personal self.) It seems many athiests enjoy the joy of discovering how the universe works using science and empiricism (and I think it’s great), and fall into the trap that because they are having so much fun and making so much progress along these lines, that everything eventually will be solved by this approach. This is a dangerous subjective bias / assumption that if wrong locks its adherants out from understanding entire realms of reality.

    (And yikes, many Christians fall into this trap, for example, thinking that because their brand of church is so good, all Christians should get on their bandwagon … It is a very easy thing to slip into.)
    Jared2    Mar 25, 07:35 PM    #
  25. I liked the review and having read some of the interviews between mr Dawkins and very learned Christians (and his general reluctance even to be interviewed at all is very apparent), and he really does not have very good answers if any to very important and highly intellectual questions, yet he is the one who condemns Christians as stupid, unscientific and gullable. The ironic thing about that is that actually many of the world’s greatest and most famous scientists have been and continue to be believers in God and often Christians as well.

    I could give many examples, but Einstein and Isaac Newton are but two which spring to mind. Einstein regarded God as the great Architect I believe. Certainly the more he learnt of the laws of physics and the ways of the universe, the more he was acutely aware of the genious of the one responsible for the undeniable design behind it.

    I think it is only possible to dismiss God or at least a designer and creator by knowing little of how the universe actually works and the awesome complexity of irreducibly complex and purpose-designed biological systems such as the living cell, the human eye, the blood-clotting system etc. etc. (please read Darwin’s black box by Michael Behe for more utterly convincing examples).

    But at the end of the day, no-one can believe in God or Jesus Christ unless he or she is enabled by God Himself through His Holy Spirit so it is not surprising that there are many whose eyes remain blind to the real truth and the One to whom all the signs and evidence really point. I don’t mind admitting that I myself am one such person who believed for many years in the evolutionary conspiracy (for want of a better description), not believing in God, until one day I was fortunate enough to have my mind and heart opened to see for the first time in my life.

    I pray for all those reading this who trust in the theory of evolution and entrust their entire eternal future to such an unproven and unlikely attempt at explaining away life and the universe without the existence of God, an impossible task since God created it all. But then we are such rebellious creatures and like to put ourselves in God’s place, not wanting to submit to a power and intelligence far superior to ours. Isn’t that what the fall is all about?

    Anyway, this blog is probably not the place to have this argument so apologies for blurting on so long and for anyone I offend. Not meaning to do that you understand, just longing for everyone to come to faith and know the real truth in the risen Lord Jesus Christ who is the only one through whom anyone can be saved from their sins and admitted into Heaven.

    I pray that you might one day believe this wonderful truth for yourselves and know the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, then you wouldn’t question the existence of God!!

    Antoine Robinson    Jun 15, 07:18 AM    #
  26. I cannot believe you have the gaul to say that his and all around general facts about the horrid violence that has been caused by all religion, and yes christianity included, are not valid or real at all. has anyone here ever taken a world history class? anyone?

    josh    Dec 18, 06:05 PM    #
  27. To Josh,

    Yes, yes I have taken a history class, you should too some time. No one can deny that the crimes of the Spanish Inquisition, or Salem Witch Trials are inexcusable. No one is saying that.

    But these offenses are more then conservative when compared to the near genocide of Hitler, or rule under Mao, or Stalin, Mussolini, ect.

    These four men alone killed millions, while only 18 people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials. And only 3,000 were killed in the Inquisition over a span of nearly 400 years, while Hitler killed 70 million in only 20.

    The atheistic offenses clearly out-weight the Christian ones. I can’t account for other religions, because I do not believe in other religions lol So if you throw that at me, or lump all religion together, I’ll dismiss the argument.

    Chris S.    Apr 30, 09:13 PM    #
  28. Just one major point to the message above – Hitler the killer of Jews another religion was a Catholic and the Nazi’s wore belts with the words ‘God Is With Us’ also in Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the “creator of the universe” and “eternal Providence.” He also states his belief that the Aryan race was created by God, and that it would be a sin to dilute it through racial intermixing – not exactly atheist speaking although he was against organised religion – probably a power thing (he did like power) rather than a religious thing!!!

    Alan    May 12, 02:15 PM    #
  29. I’m absolutely astounded by this website. I think there are some very worrying untruths, misrepresentations and mistaken conclusions presented here. My expertise lies within cosmology and analytical thinking. I think some of the arguments posed here by the “believers” show a lack of understanding that wouldn’t be so worrying if the arguments weren’t posed with such misplaced assertiveness.

    My son of 14 stumbled across this site and beckoned me over to explain to him some of the points. The fact that I had to address some of these points – which seemed to him so convincing – was the most worrying thing of all. However, this did at least give me the opportunity to provide him with a few more tools with which to defend him against these apparently “convincing arguments”. Just to clarify my position in simplistic terms for the purpose of brevity: I do not know if God exists; and anyone claiming to know…

    Please spend more time learning about the nature of reality.

    Jud Ashworth    May 26, 11:56 AM    #
  30. I’m an atheist, and I stumbled across your site. I like your thorough analytical approach, which means that your arguments are crystal-clear. Regarding The God Delusion, I think you have done a good job of shredding Richard
    Dawkins and pointing out some of his faults. I agree with you. He’s not the future, as he’s too limited in his outlook, and glosses over too much, and often relies on bullying to make his points. He is nowhere near as rigorous as he thinks he is. He is attempting to take the place of Christianity, and he doesn’t have the skills necessary to do this: too often he makes lazy pronouncements about things he is ignorant of. I don’t like his arrogance and his divisiveness. Why make so many enemies? Do we want a future filled with conflict and bitterness? WWJHD? That said, I’m still an atheist. But I think everyone has a right to their beliefs.

    Scratch    Oct 4, 12:42 PM    #
  Textile Help